Plastic surgery, makeup, and other aesthetic procedures have been in common use in various parts of the world by individuals seeking to improve their facial appearance, for example, to address certain less desirable facial features that may result from basic aesthetic, ethnic and/or cultural preferences, to more significant features that may have been the result of an accident or injury, or various congenital facial malformations, to name a few examples. Invasive facial reconstructive or structural alternation procedures are not uncommon, particularly for the latter, and can provide some drastic improvements, but often fall short of a truly satisfying result. As such, individuals routinely turn to plastic surgeons, makeup artists or the like to devise a personalized facial remediation plan by hand. These plans generally rely on certain unproven theories or ideas, and mostly rely on a subjective assessment as to how best to enhance the subject's facial appearance.
Recent academic research into the nature and determinants of beauty now provide a much firmer basis upon which to assess a person's facial appearance. For example, the publication “Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research” by A. C. Little et al. (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2011) 366, 1638-1659) provides a comprehensive overview of current research on the determinants of facial attractiveness. The commercial implications of such research, however, remain particularly limited.
In recent years, a number of computer applications for desktop computers and mobile devices have become available commercially that can be used to capture a facial image and digitally apply/overlay different makeup styles to the facial image. A user can thus preview how they may look if they choose a particular makeup style. These applications, however, provide little guidance or utility beyond the output of layered facial image renderings of a user's facial image and applied makeup style selection.
This background information is provided to reveal information believed by the applicant to be of possible relevance. No admission is necessarily intended, nor should be construed, that any of the preceding information constitutes prior art or forms part of the general common knowledge in the relevant art.